Minutes for 14 January 2010 TC Meeting

I. Roll Call
  Hal Lockhart (Chair)

Bill Parducci (Co-Chair, minutes)
  Erik Rissanen
  Paul Tyson
  Gareth Richards
  Jan Herrmann
  Rich Levinson
  Dilli Arumugam
  Seth Proctor
  John Tolbert
  David Staggs

 Voting Members: 11 of 13 (84% per kavi)

 Non-Voting
  Sridhar Muppidi

II. Administrivia
 Vote to approve Minutes from 7 January 2010 TC Meeting
  APPROVED unanimously

III. Issues
  There is general agreement that sufficient time/communication has
  been put forth to consider the Acknowledgements list complete.

  The TC reviewed the current state of the issues addressed here:
  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/201001/msg00037.html

  Erik led the discussion through each of the issues with Jan on the
  call. Issues that were addressable in the scope of the current work
  product were resolved to the general satisfaction of the TC. Those
  that were deemed outside of this scope will be added to the Issues
  list for consideration in subsequent work.

  Rich requested that we postpone voting to promote to Committee Draft
  next week to allow time for final review and administrative
  preparation. The TC concurred with this. The vote will be held at
  next week's TC meeting.

  Gareth raised a question regarding conformance. Hal offered the
  opinion that the Conformance section (Ch 10) of the Core Spec seems
  to minimally meet the requirements of the current TC process, even
  though the text is a hold over from 2.0 which predates those
  requirements. Erik will request an opinion from Mary as to whether
  the conformance sections of all the documents are satisfactory.

  Currently there is just one conformance clause in Core which says
  you have to do all the mandatory things. It might be sensible to
  have other alternatives, but the TC discussed this recently and
  decided not to add to it.

  The issue of a PDP advertising what its capabilities is deemed a
  separate issue from conformance. It is proposed that when the TC
  write the Metadata spec we provide a more fine grained way to
  advertise what features are available in a given deployment.

  A question was raised as to whether an implementation supporting
  the wire protocol, but not using an XACML compliant PDP, could
  claim conformance to something in the spec. Hal took a quick look
  at the SAML Profile and offered the opinion that it was at least
  possible to argue that this was allowed.

meeting adjourned.